I think he is. He never won the US Open, but he was close. Just look all the great players he dominated and what happened after he retired. Connors, Vilas, and Gerulaitis all enjoyed more success right after Borg retired.

I don't think that he is as great a player as either Laver or Federer, but still he is easily one of the best players to have ever picked up a racket.

I would rank him above Sampras. Borg had the clear edge in terms of surface versatility of course, while Sampras had the clear edge in terms of longevity. I think that Borg was more dominant than Sampras, although I accept that this criteria is far more debatable.

Sure Sampras finished as the year end no. 6 times and Borg twice. However everyone knows that Borg was the real no. 1 in 1978, and Sampras was a very weak and questionable no. 1 in 1998. All 8 of Borg's seasons from 1974-1981 were better than Sampras's 1998.

Looking at quality over quantity, Borg's 1979 and 1980 seasons were superior to any year that Sampras ever had on the tour in my opinion, both in terms of results and standard of play. His 1978 season was probably as good as any year that Sampras ever had as well. Sampras never had a 3 year run that stacks up to Borg's 1978-1980.

I still rank him above Nadal as well due to his superior surface versality and dominance. He was a far better player on hard courts than Nadal has been indoors, despite Nadal benefiting from the elimination of carpet and most indoor tournaments nowadays being played on medium-paced hard courts. Plus Borg was the undisputed best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980, while Nadal has never been the best player in the world in back to back years.

Borg's 3 consecutive RG-Wimbledon doubles, when the surfaces at those 2 events were far more polarised than they have been over the last 10 years, with him engaging in wars of attrition and regular 50-60 shot rallies at RG, and then serve-volleying and playing aggressively at Wimbledon, was just superhuman.

Some people believe top 10 qualify to be in goat discussion and others are more stricter...they only include 5 or 3 players. Whereas some people already have conceded one particular player is a goat and there's no more discussion.

Some people believe top 10 qualify to be in goat discussion and others are more stricter...they only include 5 or 3 players. Whereas some people already have conceded one particular player is a goat and there's no more discussion.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't there's much of a discussion either. I just take, "GOAT candidate" to mean, "top-tier GOAT."

I agree that Borg failing to win the US Open is the one blemish on his career CV. He is all-time great at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, won the Masters twice, the WCT finals once, had numerous good quality tournament victories on all surfaces, was incredibly dominant despite facing such strong competition during his peak, and was also one of the greatest Davis Cup players of all-time as well.

In the past I've seen people labelling the fact that he lost 3 out of his 4 major finals against McEnroe as a blemish as well. However that is hugely unfair.

They squared off in 2 finals at Wimbledon, 2 finals at the US Open, but never played each other at Roland Garros. Borg can't be punished for being able to progress far enough to play Mac at the business end of the US Open in 1980 and 1981, while Mac was unable to progress far enough far to play Borg at RG. In 1980 Mac lost to Paul McNamee in the 3rd round at RG, and in 1981 he lost in straight sets to Lendl in the quarters there.

Borg lost in 5 sets to Mac in the 1980 US Open final, and in 4 sets in the 1981 final, although after winning the 1st set he looked like an unmotivated spectator for the rest of that match. It's difficult to imagine Mac avoiding a straight sets drubbing had he played Borg at RG in either of those years.

The Borg-McEnroe rivalry was skewed by Borg being more versatile than Mac, and being much better on his weakest surfaces than Mac was on his. In official matches, they played each other 8 times on carpet, 4 times on hard courts, twice on grass, but 0 times on either US green clay or European red clay.

I agree Gizo. Good analysis. All the "greatest players ever" have big time pluses and also some minuses and you've discussed the McEnroe rivalry well. They played 14 times and ended up 7-7 having played each other only on carpet, hard courts, and grass at Wimbledon. This was when the surfaces were faster indoors, at Wimbledon and at the US Open too. Plus, with McEnroe and the old technology, the dynamics favored a reall great net rusher more than it does today. Borg won two big matches at Madison Square Garden versus McEnroe both in January 1980 & January 1981, while losing once at Wimbledon and winning once at Wimbledon. He lost both US Open finals, while winning the FO twice in both 1980 and 1981. So from January 1980 until the the end of 1981, he won two YEC, one Wimbledon, two French Opens, and lost two US Open finals. That's a stellar record by any account at the four biggest tourneys during those years. Of course, you didn't have a slow hard court major to compete at either.

TMF, When I joined as a poster here I was glad that in this forum is more expertise than in the main stream media and on General PPD, but unfortunately sometimes I must read strange ranking lists and other strange arguments also on this blog.

Define GOAT Candidate. I definitely have him at top 5ish all time but I wouldn't label him GOAT. You could make a case for him sure, and it would be better than nigh anyone else's but there have been better players

Who are these experts and what are their credentials? How does this list have any credibility when Pancho Gonzales is not on it? And with all do respect Rafa is not the 4th greatest player of all time.

How? I think Nadal has proven the bigger fighter. Borg quitting when he was being pushed hurts his legacy. Sampras, too, had the heart of a lion.

Click to expand...

Borg was still a pretty big figher during his career, and his 5 set record in particular was insanely good

And if Nadal or Sampras were told by the ATP/ITF that they would be forced to qualify for Roland Garros and Wimbledon despite having a ranking easily high enough for direct entry (as was the case with Borg in 1982), they may well have been disgusted and retired early as well.

Ultimately Borg was affected by considerably more player politics and a significantly less well organised tour than either Sampras or Nadal have been. It's a shame that this myth about Borg being driven out of the game by McEnroe has been allowed to spread.

It's also a shame for Borg that many people judge his career just in terms of how many majors he won during his career, when the idea of slam counting was pretty irrelevant during his career, and there were only 3 big majors a year to play in during his prime.

Borg was still a pretty big figher during his career, and his 5 set record in particular was insanely good

And if Nadal or Sampras were told by the ATP/ITF that they would be forced to qualify for Roland Garros and Wimbledon despite having a ranking easily high enough for direct entry (as was the case with Borg in 1982), they may well have been disgusted and retired early as well.

Ultimately Borg was affected by considerably more player politics and a significantly less well organised tour than either Sampras or Nadal have been. It's a shame that this myth about Borg being driven out of the game by McEnroe has been allowed to spread.

It's also a shame for Borg that many people judge his career just in terms of how many majors he won during his career, when the idea of slam counting was pretty irrelevant during his career, and there were only 3 big majors a year to play in during his prime.

Click to expand...

I remember reading something about Borg saying one of the reasons he quit was because he thought he would never win Wimbledon again.

And to suggest Borg quit because he was forced to qualify is laughable. I mean, what's so wrong about that? LOL

Who are these experts and what are their credentials? How does this list have any credibility when Pancho Gonzales is not on it? And with all do respect Rafa is not the 4th greatest player of all time.

I remember reading something about Borg saying one of the reasons he quit was because he thought he would never win Wimbledon again.

And to suggest Borg quit because he was forced to qualify is laughable. I mean, what's so wrong about that? LOL

Click to expand...

Nope do some research and learn some history. What's laughable is the fact that you and many people have fallen hook line and sinker for such a common myth.

Borg's presence in the qualifying—the subject of so much hue and cry among the game's image-mongers—was necessary because of his refusal to comply with Rule 8 in the 1982 Grand Prix guide. It states that a player must commit to playing a minimum of 10 tournaments a year, not counting the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, or be forced to qualify for all tournaments. Claiming he needed his "retirement" months and saying he desired more rest later—translation: time to perform in exhibitions from the Falkland Islands to Timbuktu at wages commensurate with whatever the designated countries' national debts will allow—Borg chose to enter seven tournaments and to petition the Men's International Professional Tennis Council to alter the rule. Forehand crosscourt. The MIPTC refused. Volley deep. Borg said fine, he would just as soon not go through the qualies at the French, which he has won only six times, and at Wimbledon, where he's only a five-time winner. Backhand pass. On the line.

Arthur Ashe, who's a member of the council and helped write the rule, last week agreed it was unfair. He said Borg had the ad. "It's one thing to say if a guy doesn't go the distance with 502 plate appearances, he doesn't qualify for the batting title," Ashe said. "This rule doesn't even let the guy come to bat."

Subsequently, Borg and his seconds pressed this point against the sport's ruling alphabet agencies—the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) having joined the MIPTC in the fray—until last week, when Monte Carlo buzzed with the drone of tennis politicos searching for a compromise, their blazers and school ties and starch ludicrously out of place on the marble terraces overlooking magnificent Cap-Martin. Butch Buchholz, executive director of the ATP, huddled with Borg. Philippe Chatrier, president of the ITF, caucused with Buchholz. Sir Brian Burnett, chairman of the All England Club, jetted in for discussions with Borg, Chatrier and all the rest.

Would Wimbledon flout the Grand Prix rule and permit Borg to enter its draw straightaway? Would Borg break down and enter three more tournaments? (Significantly, by playing through the qualifying rounds of seven tournaments, Borg probably will wind up playing more—matches if not weeks—to play less.) Was all this nonsense?

By this time the sentiment of the touring players, who in a January straw vote had split 50-50 on the question of whether Borg should have to qualify for the majors, had dramatically shifted to his side. "The council treats Borg like they are his parents and he is a 5-year-old," Lendl said. "Bjorn is old enough to know what he should do."

Vilas—as always the poet—said, "The rules were not thinking about this guy, this great champion. Life rules itself; there is balance in life. But this.... We are so sick about this."

"All the strokes are there," Bergelin said, "but not the head. It's his concentration that worries me. All this future [the hassle over qualifying] is in his head."

Imagine if the ATP were unhappy with Nadal's playing activity and told him that he would have to qualify for Wimbledon next year. Imagine what his reaction would be to that. Not that the ATP would be stupid enough to risk insulting one of its prized assets like that ever again. The organisation and governance of the sport was a complete mess back then.

How? I think Nadal has proven the bigger fighter. Borg quitting when he was being pushed hurts his legacy. Sampras, too, had the heart of a lion.

Click to expand...

How does that hurt his legacy??
His results during his very short and very successful career is what are what matters.
The feeling about a players reasons for staring or quitting the game are totally irrelevant when it comes to comparing the actual facts in stats and numbers.
Agreed?

id say maybe borg is in the discussion yes ..a shame he didnt win us open in 1980 when he came back from 2 sets down in final v supermac and was 4-4 in the 5th..also they say the grass at the australian open back then was slower than wimby was then. so its again a shame borg didnt, play as a slower grass would be even more ideal for borg seeing how great he was on clay and fast grass..

borg would have surely hoovered up several aust opens..but he didnt..anyway winning 11 majors in 27 majors entered and reaching final of 6 others is amazing, plus the 15 ish masters and 2 world tour finals he won..i think, (the ones they used to play in january of the next year, which is what we playing in the o2 arena at the moment).

Who are these experts and what are their credentials? How does this list have any credibility when Pancho Gonzales is not on it? And with all do respect Rafa is not the 4th greatest player of all time.

Click to expand...

Experts from the tennis channels. These are not a public poll where you get anonymous fan, but the experts who knows the history of the sport(eg Flink, Collins, Laver)

Kramer and Tilden are both up there, but they both did things in the amateurs to make them stand out more to the modern day analysts. Tilden's amateur career was ridiculous dominance, and at a time when the best players in the world were amateurs. Kramer was the dominant amateur player in the immediate aftermath of WW2, particularly in 1947.

Gonzales was a solid amateur player, and I think the best amateur player of 1949 (narrowly ahead of Schroeder), but his amateur career was too brief and nowhere near as dominant as either Tilden or Kramer.

I rate him behind Nadal at this point and I do not believe Nadal is a GOAT candidate right now, so no. Gonzales, Laver, and Federer are probably the only 3 serious GOAT candidates. I guess Rosewall could be for people who value longevity a huge amount, but he could be barely in or right out of the top 10 entirely for those who dont. Sampras could be for those who have high regard for fast court record and subjective views on peak level of play worth on faster courts. Tilden could be as well for some I suppose. That would be it.